3 Car Teams - Good or Bad?

[jhansen]

Well, with the news of Jaguar/Ford leaving the sport, and the uncertainty over Cosworth, this is a pertinent topic. The possibility of seeing three car teams next year is definitely real. I would like to see a discussion of the positives and negatives.

In terms of positives, it keeps the grid numbers up. It could also raise the competition, as the better teams will be fielding the third cars. Also, it would open up some competitive seats. In my opinion, if not every team has a third car, then no WCC points should be scored for third cars. But for the sake of the racing, the third cars should score WDC points. I could also see each team using the third car as a test car where they can try new parts in race conditions. Teams could also be required to use less experienced drivers in the third cars. Driver development if you will.

The primary negative IMO is less teams on the grid. Less variety is also not good considering that this is Formula 1. It would definintely water down the grid in my opinion. Team orders could come more into play, and become harder to police. Overall, I feel the spectacle of Formula 1 would not be as great.

I'm sure most of us would agree that having 10 or more teams on the grid is the best solution. However, in the end we may not have a choice. Your thoughts?

[Kicking-back]

It won't happen.

Bernie and the teams will pony up cash to keep 10 teams on the grid, because the big teams don't want to run a third car.

[EERO]

Teams have run three cars in the past, and frankly, i think its not a bad thing. I would like to see more teams why not do away with the stupid rule mandating 2 car teams. Why not three or four (Or five! BRM, 1972) or why not one for teams short on cash?

[Armco Bender]

Could be left with a 20 car Ferrari team the way things are heading.

[Trevor P]

I would like to see Ferrari run a 20 car team.
Who do you think would win?

[1200Datto27]

MS of course.

[GP Racer]

Well, Michael Andretti runs a very successful 4 car team in the IRL, so its certainly plausible that it can work. Of course the costs are much higher for an F1 team though.

Sometimes I do think its the way to go, especially after watching the Minardi boys finish 6 or 7 laps down at the end of a GP. I wonder, whats the point of there existence? Its not like they even have a remote chance at a podium, and have no chance at grabbing a point, unless through severe attrition.

Then again, I like the variety of having more teams to watch. They all have different stories, with different strategies, cars, engines, sponsors, and paint jobs!

So yes, I'm not much help here, as I'm quite undecided...

[Trevor P]

GP Racer
If 30% of a field gets lapped several times in all races, isn't this an indication that the bloody rules are stuffed? What's your solution to this embarrassment? Have more of the fast cars and get rid of the slow cars! As I said, lets have a 20 car Ferrari team - get rid of all those pesky uncompetitive and slow cars.
The solution is to get wait till Bernie dies.

[1200Datto27]

Nah, Won't happen. Bernie is like Mr. Burns, they have cloned copies of him sitting in a vat somewhere.

[GP Racer]

Are the rules stuffed Trevor, or is it that some teams are willing to take the rules given, and do whatever it takes to win in F1?

Jaguar/Ford may be making quite a point here. Why be in F1 if your not 100% committed to winning? Why bother if your not going to be competitive?

Some other teams maybe asking the same question soon...

[Matthew Ronke]

Someone has to come last. Usually the car comes last does not get any sponsors. reduce the cars and someone still comes last who miss out on a sponsor and so on untill there are not many cars left.

[GP Racer]

Yes, of course someone has to come in last.

But by how much? Do you think Minardi really belongs on the same track as Ferrari, when they come in 6 laps down? Maybe they can afford the embarrasment, but teams with marqui names such as Jaguar cannot, and I think Ford realized that.

For me, and probably Jaguar, you enter a sport to win, or at the very least, to be competitive. If you cannot, whats the point?

[mac]

Originally posted by GP Racer
For me, and probably Jaguar, you enter a sport to win, or at the very least, to be competitive. If you cannot, whats the point?

Then why did Ford dedicate such minimal funding and resources, compared with the 6 other manufacturers in the sport. For mine, Ford/Jag were never serious about success in F1 - they could not really believe they would be at the pointy end of the grid with the efforts they put in.

Considering what they had at their disposal I think they have performed pretty well in the last couple of seasons.

[pole2pole]

I don't think even the top teams could afford to run 3 cars at this level and with the FIA cutting costs this will for sure put the 3 car team thing to bed.

[dsg]

They could make the top team from the previous year supply engines to the bottom team. A couple of engines per race wont stretch the big boys budget very much.

[v8man]

Originally posted by Trevor P
GP Racer
If 30% of a field gets lapped several times in all races, isn't this an indication that the bloody rules are stuffed? What's your solution to this embarrassment? Have more of the fast cars and get rid of the slow cars! As I said, lets have a 20 car Ferrari team - get rid of all those pesky uncompetitive and slow cars.

No, Ferrari will supply 3 yr old engines to someone like Minardi so there is a second team as Ferrari could not stand having there cars coming last.

[BootsOntheSide]

10 2-car teams would be far better in my view, as it keeps up the variety of the grid, and makes the field less likely to be troubled by manufacturer pull-outs. In essence, manufacturer teams are tempted to quit by poor resutls, Minardi and Jordan aren't - they're in it fdor the love of racing,a dn that's what we need.

If there is a need for 3 car teams, I think the bottom teams should have first refusal on running them, as it can even up the grid more, and ensure that the top teams don't become any more dominant.

[luke]

I would like to see the cars that test on friday with a 3rd car for the race but I doubt Minardi or Jordan could afford it.

[garcon]

I think the vast majority of us would prefer to see at least ten two car teams (and preferably twelve), preferably without one or two teams disappearing into the distance at either end.

But it seems more and more likely that F1 is about to enter into a fairly tricky transitional stage. And during this time, if we have to allow some three car teams to keep the grid up to a minimum twenty, then so be it. How we go about that I'm not sure. As Luke says, in many ways it would be nice to see those Friday testers given the chance to race. However, to try and improve the competition it may make more sense to allow the teams up the front to run three cars.

So I guess I'm saying in principle I don't like it, but it's better than having a 16 car grid.

[BootsOntheSide]

The competition for second is close enough as it is. I think it's more important to give the smaller teams an incentive to continue racing, by allowing them to add a third car.

This would also prevent the points being locked out by only 3 teams, and ensure that one team's third-chocie driver can't cruise along miles behind his team-mates and still take big points.

[T0MAT01]

Its all very well pointing out what we'd like to happen with three car teams (and I'd agree that the bottom 5 teams should get first option to race a third car)but does anybody know the actual rule demanding three car teams?

I had a quick look in the F1 sporting regulations on the FIA's website but could only see the clause stating a maximum of 24 cars with two per team, so I guess the clause for three car teams must be in the Concorde agreement.

What I am wonderring is whether all of the teams would have to run three cars next year if there are only 9 teams left?
All I know is that there is a requirement for 20 cars to compete so would it only be 2 teams who would have to do it? and how are they chosen?

[gttouring]

well if it is only Maclaren, renualt, Honda, Williams, toyota, and ferrari and each supply 3 cars that's an 18 car grid. pretty nifty and a ferrari 1-2-3 with Valentino Rossi at the helm of one of those would surely be a winning move in all of italy and possibly the world.
ofcourse sauber isn't going away if they can use 3 old ferrari as they do now then a nice 21 car grid is set up...
if jordan or minardi doesn't go away and run toyota or honda engines, well 24 cars would be great

[Rich R]

i'd just like to say hello, i'm new here. anyways,personallyi'd like to see the regs on the amount of cars a team can enter loosened up a little(within reason), so a smaller team could occasionally enter 1 car if finance dictates, similarly ferrari say, could enter up to 4 cars on occasion ie. at monza and imola for italian drivers. just dont ask me how you would work out constructors championship points.

[Adam43]

Welcome to ten-tenths Rich R.

I like your ideas too, it adds a bit of variety to the grid. I gues allowing teams one car is easier than allowing more cars.

Nowadays we'd end up with teams entering extra cars in championship deciders (like in ETCC, etc...) rather than for the reasons you state.

[touringcarnut]

I think 3 car teams is something to look into. It wouldn't help costs exactly, but if smaller teams were able to field 3 cars, it would at least give them a better chance of getting a car to the end and with some points.